BN66 - Court of Appeal and beyond

[funjim]

Err what about

Something like w ww.isdavidgaukeworthyofhisjob.com

Kind of think it needs to be personal as it is for all of us

Fj

[OldITGit]

Worth reading this

I saw this in todays Daily Mail. If you haven't seen it here's the link

Spare us politicians who lecture us about morality | Mail Online

especially the bit about aggressive tax avoidance!!!

[Disgusted of Coventry]

Where's the flaw in this counter-argument?

"... Throughout, HMRC has made it clear that it considered that the scheme did not work and has regularly recommended that payments on account be made... "

I'm not the sharpest tool in the box, but I can't see what's wrong with this counter-argument :

"We had placed our belief in the tax legislation of the day.
Nothing has happened since to challenge that belief; quite the opposite.
The fact that the law had to be changed retrospectively merely confirms that our belief was well founded."

(Obviously DR, Emigre, Toocan etc. would be able to frame it more elegantly).

[Dulakipper]

I saw this in todays Daily Mail. If you haven't seen it here's the link

Spare us politicians who lecture us about morality | Mail Online

especially the bit about aggressive tax avoidance!!!

Just reading it OldITGit in the garden with a couple of lagers

We can write to him at s.heffer@dailymail.co.uk

He says 'Also, I am not sure what 'aggressive' tax avoidance means, as opposed to 'passive' tax avoidance, but tax avoidance is completely legal'

It used to be anyway..........

[FredBasset]

It would appear Gauke is in the news for hypocrisy at the moment - not to do with us unfortunately

MP Gauke accused of hypocrisy over unpaid work placement (From Watford Observer)

Regards
Fred

[seadog]

[

If they disagreed why did they *NEVER* but up a strong argument as to why the scheme did *NOT* work?[/QUOTE]

Its really quite simple it's because they had Counsels advise that if tehy went to the tax tribunal pre S58 they would lose.

Hang on in there, it will all come out in the wash, eventually, just like the MP's expenses and the phone hacking scandals.

[Dieselpower]

[

If they disagreed why did they *NEVER* but up a strong argument as to why the scheme did *NOT* work?

Its really quite simple it's because they had Counsels advise that if tehy went to the tax tribunal pre S58 they would lose.

Hang on in there, it will all come out in the wash, eventually, just like the MP's expenses and the phone hacking scandals.[/QUOTE]




Hear hear!

[javadude]

I note that the High Court and CoA have found that, in the circumstances of this matter, the retrospective element of section 58 is proportionate and compatible with the ECHR. It is therefore not appropriate for the government to interface with that decision and I am unable to agree to your constituent’s request to repeal the legislation.
The fight's not over.

It seems a rather circular argument: Retrospection is ok because the courts say it is. But the courts said retrospection is ok if that's what the government wants to do.

[SantaClaus]

All it needs is a full page add in The Times explaining what a hypocrite David Gauke is.

Pity some people don't think it's worth it.

[OnYourBikeGB]

It seems a rather circular argument: Retrospection is ok because the courts say it is. But the courts said retrospection is ok if that's what the government wants to do.

Convenient, I'd say. No-one backs the political hot-potato that we are, and no-one takes the blame for the 3000 families that they're about to ruin. When you think about it, Brannigan et al have played a blinder on this one so far. We have two pillars of the constitution, the government and the law courts that are hypocrites and cowards. And we have Hector, the tail that wags the dog, scheming and deceiving to get a repulsive act through Parliament. A law that had as it's dual purpose to cover up for their own failures and to ruin those that had been open and obeyed the law, no matter what you might think of how it was used, it was the law. And they say that we're the ones that are morally repugnant? If we are, then we're all up to our necks in the same cesspit. They aren't better than us. They know it. We know it. We took advantage of the law as it stood, Hector has misled Parliament, supposedly the voice of a democratic nation, the voice of the people. Who's is the greater crime? Not us, we committed none. Our MPs have had opportunities to right this wrong. They haven't, I doubt they will. Shame on them. They have willingly and knowingly failed to defend what Parliament stands for, for the sake of political expediency and because they are cowards. Brannigan might be rubbing his hands in glee, but you know something, he's more an enemy of what democracy stands for than we ever were.

The will of Parliament? It's just a convenient lie, to hide behind.

Hopefully Montp have something up their sleeve to wipe their smirks off. If we were to go through all this, just to see those turds fall flat on their face when they think they have it sown up, it'd almost be worth it.